| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Date: | 2022-09-20 04:49:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqE8OO0to5vLx=MFSgO3GVagvTemF1TmrsmqE4jEL2SWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 13:23, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Aside from that, I don't have any ideas on how to get rid of the
> > possible additional datumCopy() from non-Var arguments to these window
> > functions. Should we just suffer it? It's quite likely that most
> > arguments to these functions are plain Vars anyway.
>
> No, we shouldn't. I'm pretty sure that we have various window
> functions that are deliberately designed to take advantage of the
> no-copy behavior, and that they have taken a significant speed
> hit from your having disabled that optimization. I don't say
> that this is enough to justify reverting the chunk header changes
> altogether ... but I'm completely not satisfied with the current
> situation in HEAD.
Maybe you've forgotten that MemoryContextContains() is broken in the
back branches or just don't think it is broken?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2022-09-20 04:52:18 | Re: remove more archiving overhead |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-20 04:48:08 | Re: Proposal to use JSON for Postgres Parser format |